If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

“The shooting aspect of Deus Ex was very weak in my opinion,” says Dugas. “If you were precise it wasn’t necessarily because you were a good player, but because your stats were boosted.”

Is this guy for real? In terms of accuracy, maxing the weapons skills in DX would allow you to take full advantage of your player skill with a mouse, it wouldn't spawn in some sort of magical auto-aim to compensate for your being made of pure suck. And it was a pretty good meld between FPS and RPG mechanics.

“In the first game, the augmentations were a bunch of stat-boosters. They’d make you stronger perhaps, but not much would change on the screen – it was subtle and not very rewarding. That’s something we wanted to change a bit. Obviously there will be augmentations that are cerebral and less spectacular – but we’ll have a lot of physical augmentations that will allow you to pull off tricks that no ordinary human could. For those sequences we’ll switch contextually to a thirdperson camera view so you’ll see clearly what your character is able to achieve.”

I still don't like the sound of this, but I'll reserve judgment for until I actually see what they turn out to be and how they work in-game. I'm really opposed to the whole idea of being thrown into third-person, though, and I hope the game will offer me enough interesting alternatives to those specific augs.

And if we are to take anything from Deus Ex’s tale of cyborg ascendancy, it’s that you have to adapt to survive.

Why does this reek of compromise to me? The sacrifice of something beautiful on an the altar of mass-market appeal? I know why they do it, and I understand where they're coming from, but I really wish it didn't have to be like this. I can't help but look at CDProjekt and drool at their claims of being successful while addressing a more limited demographic.

Originally Posted by van HellSing

Let's see... fights with unique characters, who are more resilient than the usual cannon fodder and have some of the best weapons in the game, also special abilities. You usually fight them one-on-one, in set pieces.

No, not boss fights at all.

Gunther, Anna, Walton, basically boss fights, indeed. But, considering we all pretty much know that, heywood makes a good point - why specify that you're adding boss fights? Just a miscommunication, or are we talking about a different kind of "bosses"?

I would argue that Deus Ex did have boss fights, but one of the many great things about the game is that they were so well woven into the story that they didn't feel like traditional, cliche end-of-level boss fights.

Especially since you didn't have to kill said 'bosses', or you could do that without actually combatting them.

I don't think I quite follow you there. Yes, apparently players have found ways of avoiding certain moments that would lead to a final confrontation between them and one of the DX "bosses", but those were more or less by exploiting certain "shortcomings" of the level design, they weren't part of the initial plan the devs had for the game. Not that it's a bad thing they did, but I was under the impression that the game's designers had planned for certain characters to have to be fought and defeated sooner or later.

*cough* Yep. DX1 had them [boss fights - vH]. But DX3 isn't the Legend of Zelda - it isn't based around hitting the monster in the eye three times...this is Deus Ex which means you can do things differently...something to keep in mind.

van HellSing, I see your point, but I usually use the term 'a boss fight' when speaking about action or arcade games. When related to a game like Deus Ex, it seriously worries me. Lets hope they make 'boss fights' right in Deus Ex 3, since they decided to implement them.

Regarding the boss fights, DX1 is unusual because it gives you a lot of different choices for dealing with bosses.

You can kill Anna in the plane, kill her in the subway, kill her on your way out of UNATCO, or kill her without combat by using her kill phrase. You can even avoid killing her, but Ostriig said, I don't think that was intended.

And you can kill Gunther in Paris, or use his kill phrase, or avoid killing him. And you can kill Simons in the Ocean Lab, or kill him at Area 51, or let him live. In both cases, it seemed like the game intentionally gave you the option not to kill them.

And you have the option of fighting a big battle with MIBs in the 'ton to save Paul or sneaking out the window, and the option of surrendering to Gunther at Battery Park or fighting till you're incapacitated. And of course the option of how to deal with Page.

That's why when Dugas says they're "adding" boss fights, I assume that they mean something different, something more typical for action games. In other words, something like Bioshock's boss fights.

Hm? I thought being able to kill Anna and Gunther without an actual fight was part of the devs plan, and running away from Walton also didn't seem like an exploit either.

Oh, you meant that! Yeah, there's the killphrase, but that still, well, kills them. As for Walton, you're right, I usually just run from him at the Ocean lab, and I suppose you could lose him at Area 51 too.

Originally Posted by heywood

And you can kill Gunther in Paris, or use his kill phrase, or avoid killing him. And you can kill Simons in the Ocean Lab, or kill him at Area 51, or let him live. In both cases, it seemed like the game intentionally gave you the option not to kill them.

Is there any way to avoid killing Gunther at the cathedral, aside from trying to avoid his trigger when entering the room?

Is this guy for real? In terms of accuracy, maxing the weapons skills in DX would allow you to take full advantage of your player skill with a mouse, it wouldn't spawn in some sort of magical auto-aim to compensate for your being made of pure suck. And it was a pretty good meld between FPS and RPG mechanics.

I still don't like the sound of this, but I'll reserve judgment for until I actually see what they turn out to be and how they work in-game. I'm really opposed to the whole idea of being thrown into third-person, though, and I hope the game will offer me enough interesting alternatives to those specific augs.

Why does this reek of compromise to me? The sacrifice of something beautiful on an the altar of mass-market appeal? I know why they do it, and I understand where they're coming from, but I really wish it didn't have to be like this. I can't help but look at CDProjekt and drool at their claims of being successful while addressing a more limited demographic.

Gunther, Anna, Walton, basically boss fights, indeed. But, considering we all pretty much know that, heywood makes a good point - why specify that you're adding boss fights? Just a miscommunication, or are we talking about a different kind of "bosses"?

lol There you are pointing out so much negative about DX but in another thread you bash me for pointing out the same types of negatives. But thanks for proving my point again. This game is gunna be some console designers wet dream.

Sure. You can hurt him and he will run away. Unlike Anna, who will fight to her death, Gunther gives up pretty easily. That's why I think the designers intended to allow you to let him live.

Heh. Never thought of that. I should look up an old save and try it for giggles.

Originally Posted by YuSeF

lol There you are pointing out so much negative about DX but in another thread you bash me for pointing out the same types of negatives. But thanks for proving my point again. This game is gunna be some console designers wet dream.

I've quite clearly explained the difference in the thread you mentioned, and frankly, it's already rather stupendous that you still somehow manage not to get it. Do try and keep the the crap in that thread, though, or better yet, just drop it altogether.

This ancient article should be, I hope, interesting to people who insist on believing that diferences between DX and DX3's design happen because the designers "must not be fans of DX". I think it calls bullshit on that point regardless of whether the central assertion is true or not.

I don't think I quite follow you there. Yes, apparently players have found ways of avoiding certain moments that would lead to a final confrontation between them and one of the DX "bosses", but those were more or less by exploiting certain "shortcomings" of the level design, they weren't part of the initial plan the devs had for the game. .

Bullshit. The initial fights with Anna Navarre, Gunther, Simons, and Maggie Chow can all be avoided or talked around. Furthermore the final fights with Gunther and Navarre can be won in dialogue without firing a shot. The designers of Deus Ex have explicitly said that their ideal was to make it possible to beat the game without killing anyone at all (which is why characters are never awarded skill points for defeating anyone).

Of the nonhuman bosses (the giant spider in A51, the giant mechs in Paris), they can also be avoided or subverted by hacking or avoidance.

I agree that they are bossfights, just not as silly and contrived as the ones in, say, BioShock.

Bullshit. The initial fights with Anna Navarre, Gunther, Simons, and Maggie Chow can all be avoided or talked around. Furthermore the final fights with Gunther and Navarre can be won in dialogue without firing a shot. The designers of Deus Ex have explicitly said that their ideal was to make it possible to beat the game without killing anyone at all (which is why characters are never awarded skill points for defeating anyone).

Of the nonhuman bosses (the giant spider in A51, the giant mechs in Paris), they can also be avoided or subverted by hacking or avoidance.

Yes, the initial fights. My point was that sooner or later, you do have to confront these characters, though it's now clear I was wrong about having to kill Gunther and Simons. And, no, you can't beat the game without killing anyone as per design intention. Whether you use bullets or a killphrase, you still have to kill Anna, it's just that you can do it without a fight. Unless, of course, you trick the game. So if their ideal was to make the game, through its own intended features, possible to complete without "killing" anyone, they almost made it.

I agree that they are bossfights, just not as silly and contrived as the ones in, say, BioShock.

Completely true, and I never suggested otherwise.

And there's no need to call bullshit, I was simply asking Malleus to clarify something I didn't understand, I wasn't in frothing-at-the-mouth-mode.

You could always let lebedev kill anna....which results in a death, but not a kill by you. Admittedly you need to weaken her first (LAM against the door trick?), so it's still hacky, but hey.

The gas grenade trick is the most...'fitting' of the ways to do it, I guess (she doesn't, in fact, respond to gas at all, but she still tries to run away from gas grenades -or the clouds of gas they make-: if you time it right, she'll run away by opening the exit door).

Interesting point about Lebedev. But yeah, still doesn't strike me as an intended feature, but rather a neat trick the players came up with. What's funny is that it would so beautifully fit with JC answering to Manderly "Lebedev. A surprise attack." and not be completely lying for once.

Yeah, I knew that she could be manoeuvred into opening the UNATCO door for you, but I always assumed that was an exploit rather than a purposeful choice inserted into the game.

It is an exploit. The fact that there's code in the game to handle it is a reflection of the development process-- Someone didn't want the game crashing or responding in an obviously wrong way if someone else decided to add the explicit possibility of Anna surviving.

This ancient article should be, I hope, interesting to people who insist on believing that diferences between DX and DX3's design happen because the designers "must not be fans of DX". I think it calls bullshit on that point regardless of whether the central assertion is true or not.

The blogger's suggestion that Eidos would be willing to take a loss on DX3 to woo developers is just stupid. Almost as stupid as using a post from some blogger 18 months ago when DX3 was just a rumor to counter statements from the lead designer in a recent interview.

I was hoping that my comment about the central assertion not having to be true would deflect that critisicm.

The sole point of linking to that article in this context is to show that the designers will likely be DX fans. This doesn't necesarily lead to DX3 being a "true DX game", and I don't intend to counter statements in recent interviews. I do intend to counter some of the more idiotic and baseless extrapolations that some people here have made about the designers based on these interviews.

Regarding "the bloggers" suggestion being idiotic, perhaps you are right ... on the other hand, Clint Hocking is coming from a much more informed background then you or me, so I don't think it is smart to simply dismiss the idea out of hand. It's certainly not unreasonable to think that attracting dev talent was one consideration.

OK, forget about the central assertion. It's still a blog post from 18 months ago when the author had nothing to go on but "3rd or 4th hand rumors" that Eidos Montreal would be working on the game. So it's nothing but idle speculation.

On the other hand, we have the lead designer saying things like:
- The shooting aspect in Deux Ex was very weak
- The augmentations were not very rewarding
- The pace was kinda slow
- There weren't enough exciting/memorable moments
- It was aimed more towards a simulation than a game experience
- IW was too sci-fi

And the Edge article says "The team at Eidos Montreal certainly knows the previous games well, and has a healthily critical attitude to them."
The author then basically dismisses fans as being stymied by nostalgia.

I do believe the developers ARE excited to be working on the game, but these statements highlight a big disconnect between the fans and the developers over what made the original great. And in this case, the fan viewpoints can't simply be dismissed as nostalgia, because we're still playing the game.